International Brotherhood v. Missouri Pac. Fr. Tr. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1949
• Docket Number: No. 4527.,4527.
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 393, et al. v. MISSOURI PAC. FREIGHT TRANSPORT CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

220 S.W.2d 219

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 393, et al. v. MISSOURI PAC. FREIGHT TRANSPORT CO. et al.

No. 4527.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont. Texas.

February 12, 1949.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1949.

On Motion to Dismiss April 14, 1949.

Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; W. T. McNeill, Judge.

Suit by Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company and by Guy A. Thompson, trustee of the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Company against International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 393, and others, to abate by injunction a picket line which defendant union had established at plaintiffs' freight depot in Beaumont. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendants appeal.

Reversed and injunction dissolved.

Combs & Dixie, of Houston, for appellants.

Alto Watson and Charles Pipkin, both of Beaumont, and Kelley, Lockett & Lockett, of Houston, for appellees.

Mullinax, Wells & Ball, Dallas (L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, of counsel), amicus curiae.

WALKER, Justice.

Appellees were plaintiffs in the trial court and appellants were defendants.

Plaintiffs are: (1) Guy A. Thompson, trustee of the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Company (a Texas railroad corporation) acting under appointment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; and (2) Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company, a Texas corporation, operating as a motor carrier over the public highways.

Defendants are: (1) the members (sued as a class) of Local Union 393 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America; (2) Lee Cascio and R. B. Bunch, individually and as members and officers of said Local Union 393; and (3) four named members of said Local Union.

Another party to the controversy out of which this suit arose is Mrs. C. T. Heisig, a feme sole, who conducts a local cartage and warehouse business in the city of Beaumont, Texas, under the assumed name of Heisig Transfer & Storage Company. This business is operated by Mrs. Heisig's son-in-law, John Price, who holds the position of manager of the Heisig Transfer & Storage Company.

For convenience, we shall hereafter identify Guy A. Thompson, the trustee, with the B. S. L. & W. Ry. Co., and shall refer to both as Railway. Plaintiff Missouri Pacific Freight Transport Company is referred to hereafter as Transport, and the members of Local Union 393 as Union. Heisig Transfer & Storage Company is referred to as Heisig.

Plaintiffs brought this suit to abate, by injunction, a picket line which Union had established at plaintiffs' freight depot in Beaumont. The original petition was filed by Transport. This pleading was amended, and Railway became a plaintiff. Plaintiffs prayed for a temporary injunction, restraining the picketing of their depot; this prayer was heard by the trial court and after much proof had been introduced by the er much proof had been introduced by the various parties, the injunction was granted It is not involved on this appeal, but the parties agreed that the merits of the cause should be adjudicated upon the evidence admitted at this hearing, and on this proof depends the final decree rendered in this cause. After the temporary injunction issued, plaintiffs again amended their petition, and the cause was determined under this pleading and that of the defendants, to which we refer below.

Plaintiffs alleged in their final amendment that each was a common carrier for hire, Railway operating in both interstate and intrastate commerce and Transport in intrastate commerce only; that Railway owned and used the aforesaid freight depot, located at 540 Neches Street in Beaumont, Texas, and that Transport also used this depot, under and by virtue of a contract with Railway; that freight carried, or to be carried, by each plaintiff was deposited at this depot and that this depot constituted the only such place of deposit each plaintiff had in Beaumont. The allegations make it plain that plaintiffs' free use of this depot was essential to the conduct of plaintiffs' business in the city of Beaumont. Plaintiffs alleged further that a labor dispute existed between Heisig and Union, to which they were not parties; that there is no dispute between plaintiffs and their own employees; that all of Railway's employees belong to labor unions other than defendant Union; that many of Transport's employees belong to unions forming a part of the organization with which defendant Union is affiliated, which have been recognized as the collective bargaining agents of said employees, and with which Transport has a contract yet in force; and that no labor dispute exists between plaintiffs and defendant Union. Plaintiffs alleged further that each had a contract with Heisig, made before Union's dispute with Heisig arose and which was yet in force, under which Heisig agreed to and did "pick up — freight from said depot, and deliver (it) to the consignee thereof in Beaumont, Texas, and pick-up local small lots of freight in Beaumont — and deliver (it) to the aforesaid — depot"; that under this contract Heisig was an "independent contractor"; that "Plaintiffs have no right to control any of the operations" of Heisig and that plaintiffs had no "control over the employment, or the hiring and firing of (Heisig's employees) or the condition of their employment, or the wages to be paid them", and that "Plaintiffs are not capable of giving to the Defendants — any relief in their labor dispute" with Heisig. Nevertheless, alleged plaintiffs, defendants, knowing all of these things and knowing too that Transport's employees belonging to the labor organization with which defendant Union was affiliated had the right under their contract with Transport to refuse to cross a picket line, had established the aforesaid picket line at plaintiffs' said freight depot; that Transport's truck drivers and the drivers of many other persons, including freight consignees had refused to cross said picket line; and that plaintiffs' business had been greatly diminished and interfered with as a result, to plaintiffs' damage, all as defendants had intended. Plaintiffs alleged that the depot was separated from Heisig's place of business by a distance of ten city blocks, and that Heisig had no office, kept no records, and had no place of business at said freight depot. Plaintiffs alleged further that the picketing of the freight depot was unlawful and that it should have been restrained because: (a) Defendants' purpose in establishing this picket line at the freight depot was to coerce plaintiffs, through injury to their business, into demanding of Heisig (on pain of having plaintiffs terminate Heisig's contract if Heisig refused this demand) that Heisig sign a contract with Union which recognized Union as the exclusive bargaining agency for Heisig's employees; (b) such picketing, under the circumstances of this case, was secondary picketing and violated the anti-trust laws of Texas, and (c) violated the provisions of Article 5154f of Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes 1948. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were unable to respond in damages and that their damages were irreparable, and they prayed that the picketing be enjoined.

Defendants filed in response a plea in abatement and an answer. They plead in abatement that the parties to this suit were in interstate commerce, were governed by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., a Federal statute, and that under this Act, only the National Labor Relations Board, and not the plaintiffs, had any right to injunctive relief, if the facts would support such relief. Defendants' answer contained various denials and admissions which need not be set out; and specially alleged that Heisig's truck drivers had selected Union as their agent for the purposes of collective bargaining, but that Heisig had wrongfully refused to recognize Heisig as such agent; that Heisig's employees had therefore struck against Heisig, and the picketing complained of by plaintiffs, in which the pickets carried placards stating that employees of Heisig were on strike, was a lawful incident of, and a peaceable and truthful publication of matters concerning said strike, confined to the public street and involving no trespass upon the property of others. Defendants further alleged that "Plaintiffs, especially the — Missouri Pacific Transport Company and the Heisig Transfer & Storage Company, have constituted themselves a single economic unit, with a single place of operation, inseparable and inaccessible to either without approaching both, and by virtue thereof Defendants allege that the said docks at (the freight depot) is the site of their employment so that the expression of free speech by means of picket signs in the vicinity thereof is privileged as being at the site of the labor dispute." Defendants alleged further: "Defendants do not assert any intention of maintaining pickets at or near the premises at 540 Neches Street except insofar as there occurs at said location, business operations by their employer, Heisig Transfer & Storage Company and hereby in open court judicially acknowledge and assert their intent to withdraw the said pickets instantly upon the withdrawal by the said Heisig Transfer & Storage Company from the said location." Defendants invoked the rights of free speech, free assembly and immunity from involuntary servitude, as guaranteed to them by the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas. They plead further that the rights of the parties were governed by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.

As heretofore stated, when the merits of the cause were tried, the parties introduced again the proof which they had adduced at the hearing of plaintiffs' prayer for a temporary injunction; and on this proof, the trial court enjoined defendants from picketing "at, near and in the...